Re: Perl modules and perl upgrade
According to Charles C. Fu:
> > According to Zephaniah E. Hull:
> >> the upstream perl maintainers have proven that they will break
> >> things on such 'minor' level version changes.
> Chip Salzenberg <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Um, could you please give an example of such breakage? We've been
> > extraordinarily careful not to break existing code when updating
> > Perl, and I'd hate to see our effort be discounted as a failure.
> Sorry if this has already been answered, but is the intention to allow
> 5.005 and 5.004 to both be installed? Or is 5.005 going to conflict
> with and replace the 5.004 version, as the old 5.005 packages did?
IIRC, the idea is to permit them both to be installed. Perl certainly
permits, even encourages, such multiple-version installations.
> one thing to watch out for is packages which have a Perl interpreter
> statically linked into them--in particular mod_perl
> (libapache-mod-perl). (Are there any others?) The problem is that
> such statically linked modules have a Perl include path for a
> specific version of perl.
Ah, nice point. They'll have to depend on perl5.004-base or some such.
> - Instead, make mod_perl and any similar packages use a dynamically
> linked Perl interpreter (but this option has performance
And bincompat problems too. 5.005 is not bincompat with 5.004.
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <email@example.com>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."